|
mlmp08 posted:Why do you say that? Who do you think a climate activist is? It reads like you’re ascribing very stereotypically “crunchy granola” fringe takes to a very wide swath of people. Educated climate activists know the above are better than literally nothing, but are largely bullshit propaganda from O&G and capitalist classes to blame the individual for forces outside of individual control. I'm talking about groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, 350.org and Extinction Rebellion. I'm thinking of specific people like Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein and Kevin Anderson. You can say they're a crunchy granola fringe but from my vantage point they are actually the mainstream of the climate movement. And they're not effective. All they want to do is set (often arbitrary, often implausible) climate goals and let other people figure out how to get us there. Most of them explicitly envision decarbonization occurring by a rapid contraction of energy supply, which is never going to work (at least without a dictatorship) because any party that attempts to implement it is going to get immediately tossed out of office. The best thing that you can say about them is that they fight every attempt at oil & gas development tooth and nail, but they're completely lacking when it comes to replacing them in a way that's going to be politically salient. You can't get rid of gas until you have sufficient energy from other sources, and you can't get rid of internal combustion vehicles until you have a way to get people into EVs. That said, I certainly don't hate everyone involved in climate. I'm a huge fan of Gavin Schmitt, Biden's NASA climate czar. Many of the people at Breakthrough are alright. Despite some unfortunate forays into alarmist and scientifically dubious impact studies, I have a huge amount of respect for James Hansen. If there's people and organizations I'm missing, feel free to let me know, I'm always looking for more people to follow.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:the chinese communist party Over the past two decades China has tripled its carbon emissions, rising to the point of being higher than that of the US and Europe combined, (yes, that figure accounts for the emissions of the goods they export and import). I am glad to hear Xi's recent heel-turn, committing to decarbonization and reversing China's earlier policy of using emissions reductions as a geopolitical bargaining chip, but they are anything but a climate success story. Hopefully that will change in the coming years and decades but I'm not going to count my chickens before they hatch, as all we have from them right now is rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
To be fair to China they are an incredibly new to the industrial scene and that was largely due to rapid expansion of their industrial base. Even with their growing emissions their impact is like a tenth of the United States. Like the PRC going from pre-industrial to full blown industrial was the 1990s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Even with their growing emissions their impact is like a tenth of the United States. I'm not sure what you mean? China's historical emissions are about 55-60% of the US's. Their current emissions are more than twice the US's and they're set to overtake them as the largest historical emitter within decades. Their per capita emissions are about half of the US's, about on par with Europe. Not sure where the 1/10 comes in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
Okay it's a lot higher than I thought, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm talking about groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, 350.org and Extinction Rebellion. I'm thinking of specific people like Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein and Kevin Anderson. You can say they're a crunchy granola fringe but from my vantage point they are actually the mainstream of the climate movement. And they're not effective. All they want to do is set (often arbitrary, often implausible) climate goals and let other people figure out how to get us there. Most of them explicitly envision decarbonization occurring by a rapid contraction of energy supply, which is never going to work (at least without a dictatorship) because any party that attempts to implement it is going to get immediately tossed out of office. The best thing that you can say about them is that they fight every attempt at oil & gas development tooth and nail, but they're completely lacking when it comes to replacing them in a way that's going to be politically salient. You can't get rid of gas until you have sufficient energy from other sources, and you can't get rid of internal combustion vehicles until you have a way to get people into EVs.  this is my perception as well. What's funny is McKibben used to be a Natural Gas advocate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm talking about groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, 350.org and Extinction Rebellion. They are fringe compared to the clusters of climate activists able to generate action at the level of the government of France. Which, again, is a lot better than nothing but insufficient. Sometimes people make the argument that a government employee or official is incompatible with being called an activist. I do not agree with such a limitation. It may be we are talking past each other based on your idea of what counts as someone advocating climate action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:They are fringe compared to the clusters of climate activists able to generate action at the level of the government of France. Which, again, is a lot better than nothing but insufficient. What clusters are these exactly and what action did they generate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:They are fringe compared to the clusters of climate activists able to generate action at the level of the government of France. Which, again, is a lot better than nothing but insufficient. That's fine, I appreciate when people actually accomplish good things, and I'm not particularly interested in saying they're not real climate activists. They're just not the people I'm referring to when I talk about the climate movement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
china has one and a half billion people, america has 350 million
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
Big if true
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
A friendly reminder from someone who stays in the adult thread about climate change most of the time that nothing anyone we or corporations or governments will do will actually save us from climate change, and that the sooner we all accept we've killed off this round of the planet (as in, give the planet a million years and sure there will be plenty of life probably, but it won't be the majority of the plants, animals, or trees that we currently know and love and love to destroy, eat, and burn) the better. Not that we shouldn't do things, but that in terms of "saving us" that game is long since over. Even if this thread has a weird hard on for nuclear power, or windmills, or whatever the gently caress posters are arguing with each other about, it won't work. Your children will be much worse off than you were, (unless you're in the top 1%, and even then good luck with the guillotines to come.) and their children could be in the last generation or two on the planet most likely. Will there be humans alive in a 1000 years? Maybe, but it's not as likely as a lot of people in this thread think due to feedback loops and all that. And honestly, that's fine. We've been a poo poo species for a long long time. The best thing our species has ever done has been art (I'm including all forms) and we've undervalued that for a long, long time. (Trigger happy mods note that my reference to guillotines is a guess from a historical perspective of when inequality gets as bad as it currently is, and how much worse it will get with climate change. I'm not advocating or doing poo poo over here, I'm a computer toucher who will continue to live a privilege life and marvel as we kill off this round of the planet while folks argue about the rules and "what's fair and appropriate and we don't want to break any rules laws" ). (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:A friendly reminder from someone who stays in the adult thread about climate change most of the time that nothing anyone we or corporations or governments will do will actually save us from climate change, and that the sooner we all accept we've killed off this round of the planet (as in, give the planet a million years and sure there will be plenty of life probably, but it won't be the majority of the plants, animals, or trees that we currently know and love and love to destroy, eat, and burn) the better. Not that we shouldn't do things, but that in terms of "saving us" that game is long since over. Even if this thread has a weird hard on for nuclear power, or windmills, or whatever the gently caress posters are arguing with each other about, it won't work. Your children will be much worse off than you were, (unless you're in the top 1%, and even then good luck with the guillotines to come.) and their children could be in the last generation or two on the planet most likely. Will there be humans alive in a 1000 years? Maybe, but it's not as likely as a lot of people in this thread think due to feedback loops and all that. This I don't have any problem acknowledging (except your kind of weird dismissal of clean power, what's with that?). Yes, life is getting worse. Yes, our children will be worse off. Sure, there's a chance things get -really- worse and human civilization ends sometime in the next couple hundred years. That is the situation we're in. quote:And honestly, that's fine. We've been a poo poo species for a long long time. The best thing our species has ever done has been art (I'm including all forms) and we've undervalued that for a long, long time. This, well, this is poisonous garbage. Let's try to think about how we can make things better rather than wallow in nihilism. Humanity doesn't deserve to die, nobody does. I do agree that art is wonderful and underappreciated, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Well let's not get pacifist here. Some people deserve to die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Well let's not get pacifist here. Some people deserve to die. Not everyone though, which is part of the annoying part with that post. Yeah, lemme just got explain to my kids how they deserve to die because a bunch of capitalist and one percenters ruined the planet. gently caress off with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This demonstrates a lack of perspective. Until fairly recently, .... Thanks for the detailed post. I'm not ignoring this, I actually just saw this. I'm working on a response, but, since effort should be met with effort, I'm just writing it up. Crosby B. Alfred posted:The OP claimed that we haven't made any progress for decade, that simply isn't true. As the other poster mentioned, it's not that advancements haven't happened, it's that what has happened isn't anywhere near enough to address climate change. My view on Climate Change is very simple. Climate Change and Global Warming are solvable problems, and more importantly, it's solvable using our existing levels of technology. We don't need a magic bullet. The barrier we face is a political one. We understand we need to take steps to fix the problem, but the social and politcal will doesn't exist. Look at cars as an example. Removing ICE vehicles from our roads is critical, but any politician running on banning ICE vehicles is basically commiting political suicide. Here's perhaps a more immediate example from today: https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1449157243660902400?t=6CHZ2UltVTL3PgyqE1Cq7A&s=19 If this does happen as described, then I would argue the current goal of keeping things below 2.5 degrees isn't going to happen. There are no solutions to climate change that allow for the use of fossil fuels in the energy stream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
das hipster posted:My view on Climate Change is very simple. Climate Change and Global Warming are solvable problems, and more importantly, it's solvable using our existing levels of technology. We don't need a magic bullet. The barrier we face is a political one. We understand we need to take steps to fix the problem, but the social and politcal will doesn't exist. I mean... it's certainly physically solvable in that if humanity all died overnight then anthropogenic emissions induced-warming would cease to increase after a couple decades, but pushing for global collective suicide is one hell of a political barrier to overcome. But I don't think that's what you mean with political barriers, so I'm curious about what you think are the necessary steps we simply lack the sociopolitical will for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I mean... it's certainly physically solvable in that if humanity all died overnight then anthropogenic emissions induced-warming would cease to increase after a couple decades, but pushing for global collective suicide is one hell of a political barrier to overcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:A friendly reminder from someone who stays in the adult thread about climate change most of the time that nothing anyone we or corporations or governments will do will actually save us from climate change, and that the sooner we all accept we've killed off this round of the planet (as in, give the planet a million years and sure there will be plenty of life probably, but it won't be the majority of the plants, animals, or trees that we currently know and love and love to destroy, eat, and burn) the better. Not that we shouldn't do things, but that in terms of "saving us" that game is long since over. Even if this thread has a weird hard on for nuclear power, or windmills, or whatever the gently caress posters are arguing with each other about, it won't work. Your children will be much worse off than you were, (unless you're in the top 1%, and even then good luck with the guillotines to come.) and their children could be in the last generation or two on the planet most likely. Will there be humans alive in a 1000 years? Maybe, but it's not as likely as a lot of people in this thread think due to feedback loops and all that. Annoyingly you won't be able to reply for 3 days but: Do you ever stop to ask yourself why actual climatologists never align with 'the adult thread'? I'm not a climatologist but i do have a background in ecology and your outlook has no mainstream basis at all. Like it's possible in extreme models but we're talking about the same probability as clathate gun, at least at timescales that matter to us. It feels like you are taking possible feedback loops over the space of thousands to tens of thousands of years and are basing your immediate decisions and outlook around that. Never a good idea to think on timescales like that. Our immediate future is bad enough without trying to fudge it to appear worse. I feel this is pointless to say but have you considered the 'adult thread' is just an echo chamber that endlessly cycles through the absolute worse case scenarios? Passing around tales of climate doom with the same glee as spooky campfire stories? I am very suspicious of climate doomers because their outlook (nothing can be done) aligns with the megacorps that are driving it in the first place. Those guys love how demoralised you are. They'd love to see everyone else give up too. And to be absolutely frank, if it really is as bad as you think it is, go out fighting you loving coward. It's the least you can do. We as a species should fight to the very end. Not give up right at the start. Get your head out of your 'big boy frowny face climate thread' and fight with the rest of the people who still give a drat. Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Oct 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
Climate change and our how little we value art have the same problem at the core. We act like we're just like any other animal and create an entire society around catering to our most base instincts. Unlike any other species, we have the ability to find value in reality in places other than that satisfying those instincts, we just... don't. Or maybe it's that being hungry is a more pressing concern than being unenlightened. Well not on the level of industrial civilization it seems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I mean... it's certainly physically solvable in that if humanity all died overnight then anthropogenic emissions induced-warming would cease to increase after a couple decades, but pushing for global collective suicide is one hell of a political barrier to overcome. Are you okay? That's a really strange place to take what I said. I'm not certain why you'd think I'm advocating mass suicide, but you've really missed the mark. I'm talking about politically unpopular things like potentially switching to nuclear power supplemented with renewables. Nuclear is incredibly unpopular, especially when you try building a plant near basically anyone. Or the removal of ICE vehicles from the roads. Electric has made incredible strides in the last decade, and is almost at the point where it can directly replace ICE, but let's be honest, there's going to be a huge portion of the population who will disregard any effort to stop the use of ICE vehicles just because they can. No matter what happens, we are in for a period of massive change, our current way of living isn't sustainable, but at the same time, people are highly resistant to change, especially regressive change. And some of the changes that will need to be made will be regressive, like say passing a law that bans personal vehicles from city cores, (or more beneficially, cities entirely) and replaces them with public transit. That's something that could easily tank a campaign at a city level, such as a mayoral race. When I look at the current leadership, and not just in the US, I don't feel that there's any real sense of urgency about addressing climate change, and I think that they'll do anything and everything to avoid passing needed and benificial legislation if there's a chance it could hurt them come election time. We've run out of road to kick the can down, but the elected officials who should be stepping up to deal with this seem to be somewhat reluctant to do so, and so far, it's been very difficult to replace them with people who are willing to make changes, and it certainly hasn't been for lack of effort on the part of climate change activists and organizers. I wish I had a solutuon to this but I don't. I just hope someone smarter than me can figure it out and fast. Also, phone posting so please ignore any spelling errors. Edit: yeah, this is pretty much where I'm at: Lampsacus posted:Yeah, I agree. Pick one: 'solving' climate change or capitalism. This is a fun choice because you can pick either in your head. In reality, there is no possible way for the decision to be anything but capitalism. das hipster fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Oct 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:And to be absolutely frank, if it really is as bad as you think it is, go out fighting you loving coward. It's the least you can do. pull up
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
Here’s some news. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1449150745354412035?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
That's so weird, I thought voting democrat would change things in your country e: I guess that was unreasonably snide: voting for them in my country wouldn't do anything either
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:That's so weird, I thought voting democrat would change things in your country If you literally had a few more democrats this bill would pass. Joe Machin is literally a coal state Senator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 08:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Okay it's a lot higher than I thought, my bad. Following up on this, since no industrialised carbon-free society has yet been envisioned or created in the richest and most capable parts of the world, it only logically follows that the nations following in our image (and here China is only first) will rapidly catch up to us since it's all mostly the same technology. Granted, not every society on the earth will mimic the idiosyncracies of the worst large emitters (US car culture and city planning compared to the EU is a real headscratcher) but realistically the population dense industrialized nations of Asia, South America and Africa will eventually catch up to us without an alternative path in sight. So yeah, numbers in China are going bad very rapidly. But from a practical viewpoint, is that really important to the conversation when we have no credible alternative on offer but economic stagnation. Optimistically the EU and US have this decade to plan for a carbon-free society and the next decade left to actually realize it. So theoretically the 2030:s could be a turning point of industrial society worldwide. Now realistically, uh... gently caress. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Oct 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 08:44
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/the-shifting-economics-of-solar-power-in-china/ Depends how this shapes up against their panic over recent blackouts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 09:16
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:If you literally had a few more democrats this bill would pass. Joe Machin is literally a coal state Senator. If there were 3 more Dem senators, there would mysteriously be 3 more Dem senators opposed to genuine social change
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 09:18
|
|
|
The planet has to die so two senators can get more air/screen time on Meet the Press. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 09:22
|
|
|
I feel like opposition to nuclear is similar to opposition to GMOs and "chemicals" aa a more general opposition to the artificial. Similarly I often see people talking about cities as if they are environmental disasters while idealizing rural living and smallholding. Like there's this continent in environmental and climate circles that still labors under the misconception that we can live in harmony with nature. Out of the concrete jungle into nature, small and local production, harvesting the natural forces of wind and solar, sustainable, self-sufficient. Mainly self-sufficient in vegetables. It's a problematic mindset because 8 billion people - let alone 10-12 billion - can't possibly live in harmony with nature. This planet is, and has been for a while, a human habitat. Some places are still untouched but by and large the most fertile areas have been scoured of natural life in favor of agriculture, industry, homes and roads. There is no harmony or balance possible in this. This can only work with technology and we need to do it at large scales in a parallel artificial system that aims to use as little land and as few resources as possible. If you want to grow a vegetable patch and raise some chickens by all means but if the trade-off is that you're now driving 30 extra miles every time you want to go somewhere because you moved out of the city, you're probably not helping. It doesn't matter. We need nuclear and engineered crops and the efficiency of cities and every other bit of technology we can get to limit our footprint. It's not natural and there's no harmony because it's fundamentally unnatural for there to be this many of us and for us to live this way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 09:42
|
|
|
I get that this thread is more about news and data, but here's a bit of anecdotal tweet-thread showing some of the age/class divides, and why it's going to be difficult to get a wide swath of people on board with the big changes that are often discussed here: https://twitter.com/AnaMardoll/status/1448873407479746560?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 10:08
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:If you literally had a few more democrats this bill would pass. Joe Machin is literally a coal state Senator. yeah, it is kinda funny how every single time this happens it's always "just one more MP/senator/whatever". every. single. loving. time.  maybe if anyone who matters cared about this poo poo they'd replace the spoilers, but they actually them him because it lets them do their corporate agenda while saying "well, we voted right but that other guy didn't nothing we can do now" Owling Howl posted:I feel like opposition to nuclear is similar to opposition to GMOs and "chemicals" aa a more general opposition to the artificial. Similarly I often see people talking about cities as if they are environmental disasters while idealizing rural living and smallholding. eh, let's be fair cities are absolutely environmental disasters, it's just that everything else is a bigger disaster 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 12:11
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:If you literally had a few more democrats this bill would pass. Joe Machin is literally a coal state Senator. Buying off politicians is cheap and logical for industry. This is baked into the capitalist system. Being a holdout is only going to get more and more profitable. But sure keep hoping the weakest links choose integrity. It'll start working any decade now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:If you literally had a few more democrats this bill would pass. Joe Machin is literally a coal state Senator.  manchin and sinema are the current villains in the "why can't dems do anything" script, tomorrow there will be another, auditions for the role are running continuously
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:If you literally had a few more democrats this bill would pass. Joe Machin is literally a coal state Senator. i don't know how old you are but your reg date is, so you were probably a full grown adult for obamacare (and our friend in the picture above), so like, you know full loving well this is bullshit we had a lot of time to dwell on that and the conclusion was it would require around 63 nominally democratic senators to pass anything meaningful (which just to illustrate how extremely low a bar i'm talking about here, this was for 'the public option', not even loving medicare for all) 60 to get cloture, 62 so that of the two remaining one of them would 'defect' (by actually voting with dems), and then probably a 63rd because when you're talking about 62 senators you gotta factor in one of the old fucks will up and die or be in a hospital or maybe even just be trapped in their hellhole state by a massive hurricane or whatever the week of the vote. so 63 democratic senators and we have a *chance* at passing stuff that matters.... and really... i'm pretty confident we'd just find out the new hurdle from there (veto proof, then scotus) MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Oct 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Can we just elect Bernie as Chairman of the comittee of public safety and finally deal with machine and sinema
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
das hipster posted:Are you okay? That's a really strange place to take what I said. I'm not certain why you'd think I'm advocating mass suicide, but you've really missed the mark. It's just that while you've reached the right conclusion - the sociopolitical will to truly address climate change does not exist - it seems to me you have severely underestimated the severity of measures we'd be required to undertake as a civilization. For starters, large regions are on track to become seasonally uninhabitable by the second half of this century - that's hundreds of millions displaced that will need to go somewhere within the next couple decades, already baked into unpreventable warming. And for the next century we have areas marked for death by likewise irreversible sea level rise, so that means coastal settlements worldwide which, unless a critical element of our logistics and production chains, will need to start being abandoned now because we collectively can't afford the resources to sustain their infrastructure, not in the face of everything else we also need to do. And that's just at-a-glance mitigation, without getting into the systemic changes involved in actually getting to net zero emissions by 2040, which would have to happen concurrently. And of course, it all somehow has to be implemented ethically and humanely, too. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Oct 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Annoyingly you won't be able to reply for 3 days but: Do you ever stop to ask yourself why actual climatologists never align with 'the adult thread'? Not the OP but I actually have thought about this a lot. I think it's because of a few reasons: 1. If you're trying to inspire people to at least mitigate or slow things down so we have time to adapt, outright doom is going to give everyone, including political leaders, an excuse to do literally nothing or even accelerate. In particular, this doom coming from a perceived authority on the subject would be particularly damaging to mitigation strategies, even if deep down you believe you are doing it for future generations alone. 2. They'll face responses exactly like yours that imply they are allying with climate change deniers. Sounds like career suicide to me. 3. In the last few years some climatologists are starting to sound like doomers, or at least alarmists, especially now that they're taking a closer look at tipping points. They choose their words carefully but if you read through some of the stuff published in the last few years you see it sometimes eg https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0. They tend to phrase it in terms like: Will Steffen posted:“Given the momentum in both the Earth and human systems, and the growing difference between the ‘reaction time’ needed to steer humanity towards a more sustainable future, and the ‘intervention time’ left to avert a range of catastrophes in both the physical climate system (e.g., melting of Arctic sea ice) and the biosphere (e.g., loss of the Great Barrier Reef), we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse,” said Steffen. I didn't like the rest of your post. I get you're reacting to an inflammatory post, but it's really dismissive and patronizing. You could have just stuck with your first question. In particular, it feels like you're projecting the "near term extinction" flavour of doomerism onto the op (and maybe even the posters in the other thread), even though I thought the op made it pretty clear they weren't talking about poo poo collapsing next year but instead referencing events like grow zones moving in 30+ years. In fact, recently we were talking at length about how you don't want to go full reactionary direct-action doomer* and destroy the emotional health of your family and endanger your personal wellbeing like Michael Foster did. *IMHO there are different kinds of doomers and not all of them are "inactivists" - it's very easy to see some people go far down the "direct action" path.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:if it really is as bad as you think it is, go out fighting you loving coward. It's the least you can do. this part of the post keeps bugging me. I know CommieGIR said it should be obvious what is and isn't allowed, but it seems that calling someone a "loving coward" and encouraging them to "go out fighting" is the kind of extremist rhetoric that isn't supposed to be allowed ITT or something. Unless this is one of those cases where someone is saying to go out fighting against an existential threat in the life or death arena of written rhetoric, but not through physical action?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
What's extreme about don't give up there's hope?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 23:51
|
|